DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 12/30/25 wherein the examiner acknowledges that claims 1, 5 & 9 have been amended, no additional claims have been added and no claims have been canceled. Consequently, claims 1-10 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S.___(2014).
Claims 1-10 are directed to mathematical relationships/formulas. As such, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice flowchart as directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea).
Addressing the claims under Step 2A, the claims are held to be directed to concepts similar to those found to be abstract, either as outlined in the 2014 lEG/July 2015 Update to Subject matter eligibility, or, as compared to certain decisions rendered by the courts. The claims describe conducting a lottery based on Merkle tree derived formula and sorting manner. Addition of the limitations that narrow the idea merely aide in the description of the abstract idea and therefore do not render the claims any less abstract.
The claims at issue are directed to mathematical algorithms (i.e. Merkle tree formulation and similar sorting manner). In particular, the courts have found mathematical algorithms to be abstract ideas (i.e. a mathematical procedure for converting one form of numerical representation to another in Benson, or an algorithm for calculation parameters indication an abnormal condition in Grams). The courts have found that analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category (See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., (Fed. Cir. 2015) citing e.g., TLI Commc'ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v.Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRFTech., Inc. v. Int'ITrade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319,1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589-90 (1978); Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)).
Finally, the concept of identifying and transmitting lottery related information to a user further represents ‘an idea itself’ (see July 2015 Update: Section III (C)) inasmuch as it is related to processes of identifying, comparing, processing, and presenting data. Several precedential cases have found concepts relating to processes of identifying, comparing, processing, and presenting data to be mere ideas in themselves. One example includes selecting/identifying displayed data, manipulating the data through encoding and decoding processes, and generating new outputs/displays (Recognicorp, LLC, v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., Nintendo of America, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01873-RAJ (2017)). The courts have addressed other computerized processes for of identifying, comparing, processing, and presenting data including data collecting and comparing known information (Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC 659 F.3d 1057(Fed. Cir. 2011)), collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016))] extracting, organizing, storing and transmitting data (Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass'n. 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and obtaining and comparing intangible data (Cybersource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc. 654 F.3d 1366, 99 U.S.P.Q.2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) (see July 2015 Update: Section III (C)).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Claims 1-10 does not contain additional patentable elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exceptions; MPEP § 2106.05(f). (2) generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, i.e. mathematical formulas; MPEP § 2106.05(h); (3) are insignificant extra solution activity; MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional elements are limited to generic computer components performing mathematical algorithms/formula, as stated in claim 1, including “ step 1: determining a number of winners in a lottery and participants in the lottery; step 2: allowing each of the participants to submit personal data; step 3: allowing, at the beginning of the lottery, the participant to click and confirm a random timestamp; step 4: allowing the lottery system to record the personal data and the random timestamp of each participant, constructing a Merkle tree with an SM3 algorithm, and taking a root of the Merkle tree as a random seed; step 5: taking the random seed as an input, and iteratively running the SM3 algorithm to obtain a random string of the participant; step 6: sorting all of the random strings in a descending manner; step 7: selecting the winners in the lottery according to the given number of winners, and ending the lottery; step 8: verifying the random seed of the lottery: allowing the participant to resubmit the personal data, and allowing the lottery system to verify a legality of the random seed with a membership certification function of the Merkle tree; and step 9: verifying a lottery result: iteratively running the SM3 algorithm on a legal random seed to reproduce and verify the lottery result”. As indicated in the rejection above, the claim language discloses elements which are limited to generic computer components performing mathematical algorithms/formula. The additional elements, in the preamble include “a processor”; “a memory, wherein the memory stores instructions for the processor to perform”, however, the new added elements do nothing to integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application.
Therefore, while it is understood that the claims in the current application are not verbatim recitations of the guidelines or case law, the detailed analysis provided above shows how the current claim limitations at issue closely parallel the concepts provided by the guidelines and the precedential case law, and are therefore considered to be directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Under Step 2B, the examiner acknowledges the additional limitations (i.e. an interfaces or websites, interactions with websites, and various forms of software for presenting information to users). However, under Step 2B, no element or combination of elements is sufficient presented to ensure the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. For example, the components generically claimed to enable calculation of Merkle tree for management of the lottery by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, and (ii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized these functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Particularly, In re TLI Communications LLC (Fed Cir, 2016) held that adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible. As such, the recitation of claims 1 to 10 amounts to mere mathematical formula to derive lottery game.
Additionally, these limitations are merely recitations of mathematical formula to enable calculation of Merkle tree for management of the lottery, amount to nothing more than implementing the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. When viewed either as individual limitations or as an ordered combination, the claims as a whole do not add significantly more to the abstract idea of mathematical formula to enable calculation of Merkle tree.
Ultimately, the claimed machine(s) function solely as an obvious mechanism to achieve the claimed result, failing to impart a meaningful limit on the claim scope [see SiRF Tech., Inc. v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2010)]. The claims at issue here do not rise to overriding the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily performed by the computer, nor do they set forth with any specificity the interactions of the machine itself. Conversely, the claims are only specific in using mathematical formula to enable calculation of Merkle tree, and are silent as to any detail or property that would transform the otherwise generic machinery into a specialized or special purpose machine.
Thus, under Step 2B, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims provide minimal technical structure or components for further consideration either individually or as ordered combinations with the independent claims. As such, additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the identified abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “which is implemented in a lottery system comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores instructions for the processor to perform the following steps…” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
The examiner would like to reiterate that pre-Alice, it was the Office's position that limiting the claims to a computer-implemented embodiment was enough to overcome this problem and confer patent-eligibility. With the Alice decision, this is no longer the case. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer will not confer patent-eligibility. Since Applicant's invention is the implementation of certain methods of organizing human activities using mathematical formula, it cannot be patent-eligible.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments that Claims “provides a new verifiable random lottery method, which is implemented in the specific machine and solves the technical problems in the existing technology and achieves a corresponding technical effect”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to a method being implemented via a computing device, thus are directed to a "computer program" not embodied as claimed on any statutory subject matter (e.g., a non-transitory computer readable storage medium). Functional descriptive material such as a computer program must be structurally and functionally interrelated with a medium to allow its intended uses to be realized. Accordingly, claims directed to software per se are not statutory subject matter see In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1760 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP § 2106.01 for further guidance and discussion on computer-related nonstatutory subject matter.
Additionally, examiner would like to point out comparison decision in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, et al. (Enfish), which indicates that currently presented claims does not provide specific improvements in computer capabilities. In Enfish, Court found that claims are directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, - a particular database technique - in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools (enhance a degree of participation of the users in the lottery). Comparing to Enfish, the recited functions do not improve the functioning of computers itself, including of the processor(s) or the network elements. There are no physical improvements in the claim (i.e. a faster processor or more efficient memory), and there is no operational improvement, like mathematical computation that improve the functioning of the computer. The conclusion that the claims of the instant invention is not directed to an improvement of an existing technology is bolstered by the specification’s teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits is not technological, but are “abstraction” or “entrepreneurial.” Therefore, claims does not provide a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology, but, instead, is directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery. Applicant did not invent a new type of computer. Applicant like everyone else programs their computer to perform functions. The Supreme Court in Alice indicated that an abstract claim might be statutory if it improved another technology or the computer processing itself. Using a (programmed) computer to implement a common business practice does neither.
Consequently, 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-10 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNIT PANDYA whose telephone number is (571)272-2823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUNIT PANDYA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715